Nonviolent Migration

Actor and former Senator Fred Thompson is running for President.

In this recent

radio commentary, he used the epithet “illegals” and invoked the idea of national sovereignty

to support his extreme views about immigration. He calls our immigration current system “open borders.”

Governor Richardson delivered this speech at Georgetown University.

Like every other politician speaking on this issue, he shows us he can see both sides of this issue. But unfortunately, when you read between the lines, it becomes clear that Governor Richardson comes from no better a perspective despite being a border-state Governor.

This flawed perspective has two main flaws. First, it relies on a quota system. Second, it lets the U.S. economy set the quota based on the needs of U.S. citizens. This is very much an “America for American’s” approach.

When I was in Kuwait I had a tough experience that still troubles me. I was sitting in the chow hall in Camp Doha, eating breakfast with some other soldiers from my Battery. The chow hall was a converted warehouse that featured a big screen television. On this particular morning in the late spring of 1998, the Utah Jazz played the San Antonio Spurs in the NBA playoffs, and the game was on the TV. Thrilled that I would be able to see the Jazz play, even though I was half a world away, I grabbed a quick plate of powdered eggs, hash-browns, and Parmalat milk, and sat down at the table in front of the TV. I was engrossed in the game when I noticed a dark skinned man in his late thirties, about 6 feet tall, with a square jaw, and a weathered face and physique, working in the chow hall. He was next to the table where I was sitting, replacing the plastic bag in a garbage can he had just emptied. He wasn’t looking at his mundane work – instead his unfocused eyes were staring somewhere far away. His every angle was pointed downward. His unfocused gaze, his bent head, and his square but slumping shoulders were pointed slightly downward. As he automatically replaced the plastic bag, he talked quietly to whomever or whatever he was envisioning. Like every chow hall worker I had talked to in the past, he was an indentured servant.

I have met and spoken with many men like him, but I did not talk with this one. These men are called TCN’s, third country nationals. Third country means that they weren’t Kuwaiti, nor were they American. He was probably from Pakistan or Sri Lanka, like most of the TCN’s that worked on the bases who I had spoken with before. These men had been lured away from their families for the promise of higher paying jobs than they could find at home. Sponsoring companies regularly funded their voyage to the Middle East and then held the workers’ visas until they repaid the cost of their transportation. The U.S. Army contracts with these companies to provide soldiers with food, latrine, and laundry services. There were no checks on the power the companies exercised over their workers’ lives. Several of the men I knew hadn’t been paid in nine months, but the indentured servants had no recourse.

I suppose he was thinking of his family thousands of miles away, and about how he ended up being conned into his unfortunate—almost slave-like—conditions. I don’t know what he was thinking for sure, but he wore at least this much on his countenance: he wasn’t thinking about the here and now, and almost as sure, he was lonely, and wished he wasn’t in Kuwait. To a limited extent, I could relate.

Just then a song about Jesus, who I profess to worship, burst into my mind. “Making His home with the lonely, spending His days with the poor, bringing hope to their hearts, giving man a new start with his cure…” I suddenly became aware that if I wanted to be true to my claim of discipleship, I needed to leave my table and help this man. I needed to leave my peers and powdered eggs and offer to help this lonely man, who almost definitely was entirely alone as an indentured servant in a foreign land.

Looking back, I cannot make any sense of what happened next. Something inside me knew that Sergeants did not offer TCN’s help with their labor. That something, whatever it was, knew that helping this man would invite ridicule from my fellow soldiers. I knew that for someone in my position, such an action would be considered socially insane. I looked at my fellow soldiers who were watching the Playoff game on the TV. I reminded myself how much I love basketball and tried to ignore this human being occupying my visual periphery and mental center-stage. Karl Malone, who was posted up down-low against David Robinson, took a pass from John Stockton, turned to the inside, and scooped in a three-footer. I tried to cheer inside, and reminded myself that this was happiness. The Spurs responded quickly with Tim Duncan hitting a turn-around bank-shot. I in turn grimaced and told myself this was sadness. This was sanity. This was acceptable. All the while I was aware of the square jawed man dutifully clearing trays from the table next to me, placing the half eaten meals in his freshly lined garbage can. I knew that the moment was slipping me by. He would soon be done clearing the tables around me and would move on to other work. I tried to banish him from my thoughts, but had to settle with forcing him out of my sight. With my head down, facing directly into my plate, I finished my breakfast and left the building without looking up to check the score of the game or to see where this stranger was now.

During a break from my duties later that evening, I found myself with the privacy and silence to reflect on this emotional experience. I wrote down the event through tear-filled eyes. Given the many experiences I’ve had with such men, all of whom I knew better than this man—who I never spoke to—this experience is puzzling for why it moved me so much. I still do not understand it.

When speaking on the parable of the Good Samaritan, Martin Luther King said in his last public address,

You remember that a Levite and a priest passed by on the other side. They didn’t stop to help him. And finally a man of another race came by. He got down from his beast, decided not to be compassionate by proxy. But with him, administering first aid, and helped the man in need. Jesus ended up saying, this was the good man, this was the great man, because he had the capacity to project the “I” into the “thou,” and to be concerned about his brother. Now you know, we use our imagination a great deal to try to determine why the priest and the Levite didn’t stop….

It’s possible that the priest and the Levite looked over that man on the ground and wondered if the robbers were still around. Or it’s possible that they felt that the man on the ground was merely faking. And he was acting like he had been robbed and hurt, in order to seize them over there, lure them there for quick and easy seizure. And so the first question that the Levite asked was, “If I stop to help this man, what will happen to me?” But then the Good Samaritan came by. And he reversed the question: “If I do not stop to help this man, what will happen to him?”

That’s the question before you tonight. Not, “If I stop to help the sanitation workers, what will happen to all of the hours that I usually spend in my office every day and every week as a pastor?”

The question is not, “If I stop to help this man in need, what will happen to me?” “If I do not stop to help the sanitation workers, what will happen to them?” That’s the question.

Let us rise up tonight with a greater readiness. Let us stand with a greater determination.

And let us move on in these powerful days, these days of challenge to make America what it ought to be. We have an opportunity to make America a better nation.

The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. stopped to help the sanitation workers and because he did, he was shot on the balcony of the Lorraine Motel. But he left us a better nation. If we want to “make America a better nation,” we need to find ways to care about our brothers and sisters, especially the hurt and exploited like this indentured servant I saw in Kuwait, and like the thousands of indentured servants we are so used to hearing called “illegal immigrants.”

The Southern Poverty Law Center released a report yesterday, stating that the current system of exploiting undocumented laborers working in the United States is “Close to Slavery.” The article, which I encourage you to read, can be found here.

How did we end up with a system where some, based on citizenship (which is almost entirely a function of place of birth), can expect one wage while others cannot? It hasn’t always been the case. From 1776 until 1882, immigration to the United States was open. That all ended with the Chinese Exclusion Act. That Act ushered in an immigration system based on racism which still exists today.

From 1882 to 1965, our immigration laws were explicitly racist. They aren’t so overt now, but the same quota system that started in 1924 exists today – with the same intention and the same affects. Immigration restrictions are designed to keep people (specifically brown people) out, and that is exactly what they do.

For a detailed history of U.S. immigration law, click here.

And the leaders of the Southern Poverty Law Center aren’t the only ones pointing out the similarities between the criminalizing of immigrant workers and slavery.

Our civil rights heroes such as John Lewis, have said the same thing. For more discussion on that, follow this link.

Ms. G. had a relationship with Mr. A. and they had two children, Michelle and Mirna. Now the two little girls are 8 and 11 years old. They moved to Oklahoma.

They have lived in Oklahoma since they were born and the girls can’t see her dad, and just because her dad is in Matamaros and Matamoros is part of Mexico.

The girls always ask “Where is Dad?” It’s hard for Ms. Gonzales to tell the girls that her dad is in another country and just because the U.S. government doesn’t allowed Mexican people in the U.S. It’s hard to live without a father.

Sometimes we think that Mexicans should not lived here (in the United States) and at one point I had thought the same, but we don’t think about what other people are passing through, like the family that I mentioned, the girls suffer just thinking about “Were is my father?” I couldn’t live with out my dad.

Congress doesn’t want to approve the law of Mexicans coming to the United States. The government is really bad because they make Mexicans suffer. First they don’t let Mexicans into the United States, and second they don’t know what people are going through.

In some ways it is like the same problems that we had before 1954 that black people couldn’t be together with white.

It’s the same thing with the Mexican and U.S. citizens (Mexicans are black and U.S. citizens are white). I only hope that a Martin Luther King could stop the same kind of conflict. And I hope that the resolution could come soon.

For me, the U.S. Government could be my Martin Luther King.

Today on a blog I often read, xicanopwr, the author expressed the frustration I have often felt over the apparent apathy of people who should be protesting. He started and ended the article this way:

“There is an urgency this minute, I am alarmed by the complacency in reaction to the things that are taking place right here, right now in the United States of America…. A discussion needs to take place, opinions need to be expressed and shared. So who is in favor of this strategy? Let me hear your thoughts.”

The rest of the article can be found here.

I posted the following reply:

The civil rights movement in the United States had something we do not. They had a very clear goal: to build the “Beloved Community.” This Christian ideal of the human race living together as a family–as children of God–was what inspired people to make the sacrifices it took to succeed over deeply entrenched systems of racism, segregation, and militarism.

Make no mistake, we need a goal, but not any old goal will do. We need the same goal. Dr. King said “We are all tied in a single garment of destiny,” and “what affects one directly affects all indirectly.” Because of this goal, the civil rights workers of the 1960’s acted very peculiarly. They refused to hate those who hated them. They refused to hit those that hit them. They insisted on loving their enemies. When they were physically attacked, they did not return blows, nor even resist, but instead turned the other cheek.

John Lewis, then President of SNCC and now Congressman, (shown here) put it this way.

“It is not hard to find forgiveness. And this, Jim Lawson taught us, is at the essence of the nonviolent way of life–the capacity to forgive. When you can truly understand and feel, even as a person is cursing you to your face, even as he is spitting on you, or pushing a lit cigarette into your neck, or beating you with a truncheon–if you can understand and feel even in the midst of those critical and often physically painful moments that your attacker is as much a victim as you are, that he is a victim of the forces that have shaped and fed his anger and fury, then you are well on your way to the nonviolent life…. This sense of love, this sense of peace, the capacity for compassion, is something you carry inside yourself every waking minute of the day. It shapes your response to a curt cashier in the grocery store or to a driver cutting you off in traffic just as surely as it keeps you from striking back at a state trooper who might be kicking you in the ribs because you dared to march in protest against an oppressive government. If you want to create an open society, your means of doing so must be consistent with the society you want to creates. Means and ends are absolutely inseparable. Violence begets violence. Hatred begets hatred. Anger begets anger, every minute of the day, in the smallest of moments as well as the largest.”

In so doing, they not only ended segregation, but moved our nation in the direction of unity and healing.

If we hope to have the kind of results they did, and hope to be the type of people they were, we need to adopt the philosophy and methods taught by Jesus of Nazareth, Mohandas Gandhi, and Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. If we fail this test of character we will have no more claim to the beloved community than the Minutemen.

Let me finish this statement by saying that if you actually want to do something to advance human rights, or immigrant rights, or the right to migrate, or any just cause, start your preparations by studying Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount and practicing forgiveness and Christian love in your daily actions. Add to your reading list the writings about satyagraha (holding fast to truth and resisting injustice) and ahimsa (nonviolence) as taught by Mohandas Gandhi. Read what Martin Luther King Jr. said about love and natural law. Practice these things in your everyday life.

This preparation will take months, and the opportunity to use them will not give you enough notice. You need to start now so that you will be ready when called upon to make a difference.

Break the wall of ignorance
By Etienne Rosas
Columnist

“Something there is that doesn’t love a wall” –Robert Frost

U.S. plans to build a 700-mile wall along the border with Mexico are already under way. Preparations are being made, money is being spent and with much hope from the politicians, voters will perceive them as “tough on immigration.”

On the morning of Feb. 21, U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff spoke of mutual cooperation and strengthening Mexican-American negotiations. That afternoon, he “inaugurated” a segment of the wall in Arizona by soldering one of its panels.

Full Story

© 2007 The Collegian Online – The University of Texas at Brownsville and Texas Southmost College

I’ll be updating this often, but here are some podcast discussions I have found from three major presidential candidates on the issue of immigration.

Democrat Barack Obama

[odeo=http://odeo.com/audio/1138341/view]

Republican John McCain. The part about immigration is from 17:50 to 27:30.

[odeo=http://odeo.com/audio/1484271/view]

Democrat John Edwards. The part about immigration is from 12:35 to 19:25

[odeo=http://odeo.com/audio/1055338/view]

[odeo=http://odeo.com/audio/4361363/view]

Well, I think the immigration law shouldn’t be like that because people from here, from the U.S. could go to Mexico without a problem, and come back without one. Well, I know it’s hard because one of my family members, Gama, is from Mexico, and I haven’t seen him like from two years ago. And I haven’t seen my uncle Gama like from two years ago. I remember when I was little, and all my family would get together and make a cook-out or something but now he can’t come here no more. Sometime, last year, when I went and visited him, and they told me he passed away. That’s why I should think they should be fair with the Mexican people.

I think you people from Congress should think about it because if you were to be in my shoes, I’m sure you would do everything to try to change the law. Like now, my mom’s friend, Rosa, went to Cd. Juarez to try to get her papers, but they didn’t give her permission to get them. And now, her sons are here by themselves, with their grandma. That’s why a lot of people are afraid to go out because of the law, that they want to send all people to Mexico, “where they belong.” I think it’s really unfair for people to come here because they can’t be able to do nothing because they know that if you’re from Mexico, they want to treat you bad. Because I live close to the border and I always see Border Patrol treating immigration people bad because they don’t have their papers and they are calling them like “mojados,” which means like “wetbacks.”

I think they should really change the law because I really miss some of my cousins. That’s why I took this time because of Mr. Moore told us that he was going to send these letters to Congress, and I think they could help us who have family over there.

-Antonio Quezada

This student gave me permission to post his letter on this website. I agreed to change the names of the people in the stories. -John Moore